Guest Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 RJM, nice way to end the thread, but I wanted to post a article about Higgs Boson particle and some cool pics of the LHC since Cervelo had posted a somewhat similar article.. It relates to BF for me because it blows me away that something you can not even see exists so why can't a large unknown primate? And to think of the amount of time and money spent to prove an invisible particle when Higgs theory had been rejected fora bout 50 years!! I'm not sure how you can claim that Higgs' theory was "rejected [for about] 50 years." While it's true that a journal rejected Higgs' first draft, his second draft was accepted for publication a few months later, and his work was incorporated into the Standard Model of physics within three years of publication. Moreover, five other scientists published similar theories at roughly the same time as Higgs. The reason it took so long to discover the Higgs particle is due more to the technological limitations at the time he published than any rejection. As for any comparison between Higgs and bigfoot - Higgs played a major role in explaining why our universe exists. Without the Higgs Boson particle, there would be no universe. Bigfoot is a hypothetical monkey. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Thought I posted the article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-the-Higgs-Boson-Was-Found-213876841.html?utm_source=smithsoniantopic&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130714-Weekender#Higgs-boson-ATLAS-detector-1.jpg LC, I know the story. Even though his theory was eventually published it was still only a theory until 7-4-12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 The topic of evidence has been a hotly contested debate now for decades. We've just gone through a DNA fiasco with Melba Ketchum and CO. and the Georgia hoax and any number of others. There is only one form of evidence that should be entertained now by everyone in the field and it is either the living breathing animal or the full body of one. Something that could be run through the Smithstonean, or the White House Lawn or the halls of any university or lab and it would be universally accepted as the real thing period. I say this because every single shred of evidence of every other type has been the null set. If I was the evidence police (and I'm not) I'd say to everyone and everything to date "Very nice but come back when you have the body of one of these things you say you heard or saw. If you can legally establish murder absent a body (and you can, because it has been done), then you can establish BF absent a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) They're not the same thing. In the case of murder absent a body, a person has disappeared. A person who used to live in a place and have a job and drive a car is gone. Perhaps there's signs of suspicious activity at their home. Perhaps their spouse is acting in a suspicious way. In the case of proving an animal, science has rules. While I agree that both "murder without a body" and belief in bigfoot at this point (absent any personal first-hand knowledge or experience with the animal) are both predicated on circumstantial evidence, it seems that "no body" is a lower hurdle in the murder trial than it is in the scientific one. Science sets higher bars and that, generally speaking, is a good thing. Edited July 20, 2013 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) Not to mention that in most of those cases, there's some physical evidence of the person being dead or seriously injured. Blood stains, dna showing the victim was in a car trunk, bullet holes, bone shards, the victom's burnt out car etc. Where's the physical evidence of bigfoot? Edited July 21, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Not to mention that in most of those cases, there's some physical evidence of the person being dead or seriously injured. Blood stains, dna showing the victim was in a car trunk, bullet holes, bone shards, the victom's burnt out car etc. Where's the physical evidence of bigfoot? Non sequitur. Not related at all. One has to do with the disappearace of an established person/being. The other has to do with the proof of an unknown or unproven species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Where's the physical evidence of bigfoot? It's all over. Footprints are physical evidence. Hairs that can't be classified are physical evidence. Evidence ≠proof but is does indicate something that deserves further investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 21, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2013 Bipto - I plussed you. I'm baffled to near speechlessness what it is about that which so many people so deliberately choose to not understand. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Where's the physical evidence of bigfoot? It's all over. Footprints are physical evidence. Hairs that can't be classified are physical evidence. Evidence ≠proof but is does indicate something that deserves further investigation. Footprints are evidence that something or someone left those footprints. Prints are not evidence that bigfoot left them. As for unclassified hair, hair comparison is not an exact science. Even under lab conditions, professional hair examiners get it wrong almost 10% of the time. See e.g. http://www.modernmicroscopy.com/main.asp?article=36&page=8 There is no reason to think that they'd do better with hair that's been exposed to the elements for an unknown length of time, which could have come from any of hundreds of known species, or which might not even be a natural hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I didn't say footprints were evidence that bigfoot left them, I said they were evidence of something that deserves further investigation. A continent-wide, multi-generational conspiracy to leave big fake humanoid footprints in some crazy, difficult to access and infrequently visited locations is almost as fascinating as the idea they're being left there (more often that not) by an actual bipedal primate unknown to science, don't you think? Along, of course, with the weird way people keep seeing biologically consistent creatures walking around areas with remarkably consistent environmental conditions (ie, annual rainfall, proximity to water resources) and have been for hundreds of years (if not thousands). Again, you're conflating "evidence" with "proof." They're not the same thing, though one usually leads to another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 ^^ It is quite remarkable that, as you say, people have been seeing these things walking around for hundreds if not thousands of years, yet no one has ever been able to prove they exist. I agree, that is quite fascinating... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 21, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2013 Point taken, and this is where Bipto and I disagree. I don't think a mere dumb animal accounts for that difference. On the other hand, in my years in the woods, which are plenty, I've never found a dead human. I suspect the reasons are the same. How far beyond mere animal they are ... I don't know. That's what keeps this interesting. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 24, 2013 Admin Share Posted July 24, 2013 ^^ It is quite remarkable that, as you say, people have been seeing these things walking around for hundreds if not thousands of years, yet no one has ever been able to prove they exist. I agree, that is quite fascinating... If we are to simply look at the mystery of Sasquatch you are quite correct. But if we take into account other unknowns, then this get's interesting. The world had reports of Gorillas for centuries and they were not proven to exist until the mid 1800's. And even more startling is homo floresiensis whose fossil evidence was discovered within the last decade despite reports by natives for centuries. Science at one time thought that big brains and bipedalism were congruent with each other, and now we understand that bipedalism came much earlier than a big brain. My point being is that Sasquatch is not a three headed hydra with green scales. However improbable that something like this is undiscovered in the modern age? It's not completely off kilter with what we do know about Simian evolution or mammalian science in general. And there are many parts of the globe that could still throw a curve ball at us. To put it into perspective, we as a species Homo Sapien, still have members living in the neolithic age that are still "undiscovered" by anthropologists. How is that possible with cell phones and skyscrapers??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 My point being is that Sasquatch is not a three headed hydra with green scales. If it were, I probably wouldn't be looking for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 24, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) But if we take into account other unknowns, then this get's interesting. The world had reports of Gorillas for centuries and they were not proven to exist until the mid 1800's. ? If not even later than that Norse wasn't it ? I thought they never got scientific acceptance until the early 1900's ? Edited July 24, 2013 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts